Keelin Murphy

Bio: Keelin Murphy is an academic researcher from Radboud University Nijmegen. The author has contributed to research in topics: Image registration & Medicine. The author has an hindex of 18, co-authored 37 publications receiving 4935 citations. Previous affiliations of Keelin Murphy include University College Cork & Analysis Group.

elastix : A Toolbox for Intensity-Based Medical Image Registration

Abstract: Medical image registration is an important task in medical image processing. It refers to the process of aligning data sets, possibly from different modalities (e.g., magnetic resonance and computed tomography), different time points (e.g., follow-up scans), and/or different subjects (in case of population studies). A large number of methods for image registration are described in the literature. Unfortunately, there is not one method that works for all applications. We have therefore developed elastix, a publicly available computer program for intensity-based medical image registration. The software consists of a collection of algorithms that are commonly used to solve medical image registration problems. The modular design of elastix allows the user to quickly configure, test, and compare different registration methods for a specific application. The command-line interface enables automated processing of large numbers of data sets, by means of scripting. The usage of elastix for comparing different registration methods is illustrated with three example experiments, in which individual components of the registration method are varied.

Evaluation of Registration Methods on Thoracic CT: The EMPIRE10 Challenge

Abstract: EMPIRE10 (Evaluation of Methods for Pulmonary Image REgistration 2010) is a public platform for fair and meaningful comparison of registration algorithms which are applied to a database of intra patient thoracic CT image pairs. Evaluation of nonrigid registration techniques is a nontrivial task. This is compounded by the fact that researchers typically test only on their own data, which varies widely. For this reason, reliable assessment and comparison of different registration algorithms has been virtually impossible in the past. In this work we present the results of the launch phase of EMPIRE10, which comprised the comprehensive evaluation and comparison of 20 individual algorithms from leading academic and industrial research groups. All algorithms are applied to the same set of 30 thoracic CT pairs. Algorithm settings and parameters are chosen by researchers expert in the con figuration of their own method and the evaluation is independent, using the same criteria for all participants. All results are published on the EMPIRE10 website (http://empire10.isi.uu.nl). The challenge remains ongoing and open to new participants. Full results from 24 algorithms have been published at the time of writing. This paper details the organization of the challenge, the data and evaluation methods and the outcome of the initial launch with 20 algorithms. The gain in knowledge and future work are discussed.

elastix : A Toolbox for Intensity-Based Medical Image Registration

Abstract: Medical image registration is an important task in medical image processing. It refers to the process of aligning data sets, possibly from different modalities (e.g., magnetic resonance and computed tomography), different time points (e.g., follow-up scans), and/or different subjects (in case of population studies). A large number of methods for image registration are described in the literature. Unfortunately, there is not one method that works for all applications. We have therefore developed elastix, a publicly available computer program for intensity-based medical image registration. The software consists of a collection of algorithms that are commonly used to solve medical image registration problems. The modular design of elastix allows the user to quickly configure, test, and compare different registration methods for a specific application. The command-line interface enables automated processing of large numbers of data sets, by means of scripting. The usage of elastix for comparing different registration methods is illustrated with three example experiments, in which individual components of the registration method are varied.

Convolutional neural networks: an overview and application in radiology

Abstract: Convolutional neural network (CNN), a class of artificial neural networks that has become dominant in various computer vision tasks, is attracting interest across a variety of domains, including radiology. CNN is designed to automatically and adaptively learn spatial hierarchies of features through backpropagation by using multiple building blocks, such as convolution layers, pooling layers, and fully connected layers. This review article offers a perspective on the basic concepts of CNN and its application to various radiological tasks, and discusses its challenges and future directions in the field of radiology. Two challenges in applying CNN to radiological tasks, small dataset and overfitting, will also be covered in this article, as well as techniques to minimize them. Being familiar with the concepts and advantages, as well as limitations, of CNN is essential to leverage its potential in diagnostic radiology, with the goal of augmenting the performance of radiologists and improving patient care. • Convolutional neural network is a class of deep learning methods which has become dominant in various computer vision tasks and is attracting interest across a variety of domains, including radiology. • Convolutional neural network is composed of multiple building blocks, such as convolution layers, pooling layers, and fully connected layers, and is designed to automatically and adaptively learn spatial hierarchies of features through a backpropagation algorithm. • Familiarity with the concepts and advantages, as well as limitations, of convolutional neural network is essential to leverage its potential to improve radiologist performance and, eventually, patient care.

Prediction models for diagnosis and prognosis of covid-19: systematic review and critical appraisal

Abstract: Objective To review and appraise the validity and usefulness of published and preprint reports of prediction models for diagnosing coronavirus disease 2019 (covid-19) in patients with suspected infection, for prognosis of patients with covid-19, and for detecting people in the general population at increased risk of covid-19 infection or being admitted to hospital with the disease. Design Living systematic review and critical appraisal by the COVID-PRECISE (Precise Risk Estimation to optimise covid-19 Care for Infected or Suspected patients in diverse sEttings) group. Data sources PubMed and Embase through Ovid, up to 1 July 2020, supplemented with arXiv, medRxiv, and bioRxiv up to 5 May 2020. Study selection Studies that developed or validated a multivariable covid-19 related prediction model. Data extraction At least two authors independently extracted data using the CHARMS (critical appraisal and data extraction for systematic reviews of prediction modelling studies) checklist; risk of bias was assessed using PROBAST (prediction model risk of bias assessment tool). Results 37 421 titles were screened, and 169 studies describing 232 prediction models were included. The review identified seven models for identifying people at risk in the general population; 118 diagnostic models for detecting covid-19 (75 were based on medical imaging, 10 to diagnose disease severity); and 107 prognostic models for predicting mortality risk, progression to severe disease, intensive care unit admission, ventilation, intubation, or length of hospital stay. The most frequent types of predictors included in the covid-19 prediction models are vital signs, age, comorbidities, and image features. Flu-like symptoms are frequently predictive in diagnostic models, while sex, C reactive protein, and lymphocyte counts are frequent prognostic factors. Reported C index estimates from the strongest form of validation available per model ranged from 0.71 to 0.99 in prediction models for the general population, from 0.65 to more than 0.99 in diagnostic models, and from 0.54 to 0.99 in prognostic models. All models were rated at high or unclear risk of bias, mostly because of non-representative selection of control patients, exclusion of patients who had not experienced the event of interest by the end of the study, high risk of model overfitting, and unclear reporting. Many models did not include a description of the target population (n=27, 12%) or care setting (n=75, 32%), and only 11 (5%) were externally validated by a calibration plot. The Jehi diagnostic model and the 4C mortality score were identified as promising models. Conclusion Prediction models for covid-19 are quickly entering the academic literature to support medical decision making at a time when they are urgently needed. This review indicates that almost all pubished prediction models are poorly reported, and at high risk of bias such that their reported predictive performance is probably optimistic. However, we have identified two (one diagnostic and one prognostic) promising models that should soon be validated in multiple cohorts, preferably through collaborative efforts and data sharing to also allow an investigation of the stability and heterogeneity in their performance across populations and settings. Details on all reviewed models are publicly available at https://www.covprecise.org/. Methodological guidance as provided in this paper should be followed because unreliable predictions could cause more harm than benefit in guiding clinical decisions. Finally, prediction model authors should adhere to the TRIPOD (transparent reporting of a multivariable prediction model for individual prognosis or diagnosis) reporting guideline. Systematic review registration Protocol https://osf.io/ehc47/, registration https://osf.io/wy245. Readers’ note This article is a living systematic review that will be updated to reflect emerging evidence. Updates may occur for up to two years from the date of original publication. This version is update 3 of the original article published on 7 April 2020 (BMJ 2020;369:m1328). Previous updates can be found as data supplements (https://www.bmj.com/content/369/bmj.m1328/related#datasupp). When citing this paper please consider adding the update number and date of access for clarity.